Underwood v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Underwood v. State

829 S.W.2d 227, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1025, 1991 WL 331586

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 17, 1992

DocketNo. 10-91-222-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 829 S.W.2d 227 (Underwood v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Underwood v. State, 829 S.W.2d 227, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1025, 1991 WL 331586 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Justice.

Steven Underwood was tried before a jury for driving while intoxicated. He “rested” his case without calling any witnesses. After almost six hours of deliberations, the jury informed the court that it was “deadlocked.” Underwood notified that court that he wanted to make a motion for a directed verdict. The court declared a mistrial. Underwood then moved for an directed verdict of an acquittal, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. He attempts to appeal from the denial of his motion.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction:

Denials of motions to acquit are not interlocutorily appealable because, being nothing more than a motion for a directed verdict, they are not collateral to the merits but are instead “precisely directed” to them.... Indeed, by this appeal this Court is asked to decide whether the evidence is sufficient and the denial of the acquittal motion erroneous.... An appellate determination of the sufficiency of the evidence properly lies in an appeal after final judgment.

See United States v. Rey, 641 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 861, 102 S.Ct. 818, 70 L.Ed.2d 160 (1981); United States v. Becton, 632 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837, 102 S.Ct. 141, 70 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Justice.

Steven Underwood was tried before a jury for driving while intoxicated. He “rested” his case without calling any witnesses. After almost six hours of deliberations, the jury informed the court that it was “deadlocked.” Underwood notified that court that he wanted to make a motion for a directed verdict. The court declared a mistrial. Underwood then moved for an directed verdict of an acquittal, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. He attempts to appeal from the denial of his motion.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction:

Denials of motions to acquit are not interlocutorily appealable because, being nothing more than a motion for a directed verdict, they are not collateral to the merits but are instead “precisely directed” to them.... Indeed, by this appeal this Court is asked to decide whether the evidence is sufficient and the denial of the acquittal motion erroneous.... An appellate determination of the sufficiency of the evidence properly lies in an appeal after final judgment.

See United States v. Rey, 641 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 861, 102 S.Ct. 818, 70 L.Ed.2d 160 (1981); United States v. Becton, 632 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 837, 102 S.Ct. 141, 70 L.Ed.2d 117 (1981).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 S.W.2d 227, 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1025, 1991 WL 331586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-state-texapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack